J-10C A sole international market for China's J-10 fighter jets is taking shape

[FuturePAF]

Why we need a testbeds @FuturePAF and both China and Pakistan haven't any overhaul facilitates and one think for sure if Russia will not permit to resale of Pakistan, what happen than @FuturePAF

we are facing serious threats in form of RAFALE and might be in form of F-35 we need a interim jets ASAP, which would be either J-10C/J-16 or MIG-35 as for F-35 J-31 would be there @FuturePAF

The J-20 is currently operational, but obviously it has room to improve in terms of sensor fusion and its electronics. Per USAF and US Marine Pilots, who are flying the F-35, stealth fighters tactics are different then 4th generation fighters.

It is PAF that choose to go with the JF-17 instead of the J-10. They seem to believe the JF-17's air-frame is good enough, and they are focusing on the weapons, electronic components, and fighter tactics. The JF-17 is also a budget conscious design. Sharing the same chief designer as the J-10 and J-20, the design limitations of the JF-17 are self-imposed, because if the PAF wants to it can go forward with one of the fan-boy art design, the Chinese could do it. Therefore, other than the airframe limitations, the JF-17 can have (albiet smaller versions) all the same equipment as the J-10. The JF-17 should be the last 4th generation fighter type the PAF procures, because PAF needs to focus on qualitative advantages.

We need to find out where we need to be with a 5th generation fighter, where the J-31 stands today, and what kind of timeline would allow the J-31 to get to where we need it to be. Remember the J-20 is operational. It has an initial capability that satisfies the PLAAF, so it can be deployed operationally. Also the JF-17 and the J-31 will share the same engine types, so PAF pushing the J-31 along in all aspects will trickle down to the JF-17.

The idea of the Mig-29 test-beds is for PAF to identify in its own domain, what it needs its future 5th generation fighter to be able to do. PAF can start doing that this year. It can test out sub-systems from Chinese companies and give them feedback. The Mig-29 is a cheaper air-frame with similar final engines and size to the plane we intent to procure, hence why its is ideal to stand in for the J-31 in the PAF's portion of the J-31 program.

The Mig-29s from Sudan would be on a 3 year Lease. never sold to the PAF. While the PAF borrows 4 Mig-29s, it could lease Sudan 4-8 JF-17s to cover their gap. If at the end of the 3 year program, the Sudanese are happy with the JF-17s they could buy them or return them.

The Mig-29s would come back overhauled structurally, and their sub-systems could be returned to original condition or kept with the upgraded systems, if the Sudanese want. This is just a potential side project to sell more to the Sudanese.

The Russians could try to block a lease, and so some procurement of weapons and new sub-systems may need to be made with them to appease them. China would have to be asked to use its diplomatic pressure to convince them Russia to go along.
==============

You are worried about the Rafales coming this year. I agree that is indeed concerning, but more 4th generation fighters will not change the status quo much. it would hold the PAF back in 4th generation tactics. If we need fighters ASAP we can ask China to lease some of theirs. Leasing some J-10s and/or J-11s for 5 years, until the J-31 matures, could a prudent way for the PAF to cover that gap.

If the PAF commits to the J-31 program, we could see a prototype with all the design modifications (like side bays) and electronics equipment fit fly in a couple years, with a finalized operational design possibly the year after that. In 4 years time, we could see the first full squadron, and one more squadron per year each year after that.

 

[SABRE]

The J-20 is currently operational, but obviously it has room to improve in terms of sensor fusion and its electronics. Per USAF and US Marine Pilots, who are flying the F-35, stealth fighters tactics are different then 4th generation fighters.

It is PAF that choose to go with the JF-17 instead of the J-10. They seem to believe the JF-17's air-frame is good enough, and they are focusing on the weapons, electronic components, and fighter tactics. The JF-17 is also a budget conscious design. Sharing the same chief designer as the J-10 and J-20, the design limitations of the JF-17 are self-imposed, because if the PAF wants to it can go forward with one of the fan-boy art design, the Chinese could do it. Therefore, other than the airframe limitations, the JF-17 can have (albiet smaller versions) all the same equipment as the J-10. The JF-17 should be the last 4th generation fighter type the PAF procures, because PAF needs to focus on qualitative advantages.

We need to find out where we need to be with a 5th generation fighter, where the J-31 stands today, and what kind of timeline would allow the J-31 to get to where we need it to be. Remember the J-20 is operational. It has an initial capability that satisfies the PLAAF, so it can be deployed operationally. Also the JF-17 and the J-31 will share the same engine types, so PAF pushing the J-31 along in all aspects will trickle down to the JF-17.

The idea of the Mig-29 test-beds is for PAF to identify in its own domain, what it needs its future 5th generation fighter to be able to do. PAF can start doing that this year. It can test out sub-systems from Chinese companies and give them feedback. The Mig-29 is a cheaper air-frame with similar final engines and size to the plane we intent to procure, hence why its is ideal to stand in for the J-31 in the PAF's portion of the J-31 program.

==============

You are worried about the Rafales coming this year. I agree that is indeed concerning, but more 4th generation fighters will not change the status quo much. it would hold the PAF back in 4th generation tactics. If we need fighters ASAP we can ask China to lease some of theirs. Leasing some J-10s and/or J-11s for 5 years, until the J-31 matures, could a prudent way for the PAF to cover that gap.

If the PAF commits to the J-31 program, we could see a prototype with all the design modifications (like side bays) and electronics equipment fit fly in a couple years, with a finalized operational design possibly the year after that. In 4 years time, we could see the first full squadron, and one more squadron per year each year after that.

I don't mean to sound rude but what is this obsession with leasing military hardware? Leased items cannot be used during a conflict. They are mainly acquired for training and gaining experience in the case a state wants to induct specific or similar systems in the future. Indian Navy acquired Russian nuclear submarines not for filling gaps or to use them for deterrence patrol. They were for training & gaining experience. Reports suggest that Russian submarines were not operationalized during the recent conflict. If we lease J-10/J-11 from China, we will have to pay lease, maintenance costs, liabilities, etc., only to return these jets back to China in the end. The experience gained would turn into a loss if PAF ends up acquiring different fighter. Last but not least, it is absolutely difficult for the Chinese military to divert their military assets away from Eastern Mainland China and the South China Sea. Things are quite hot there.

 

[Wolf]

J10 with AESA, CFT, Anti shipping capabilities would be very nice to Mirage Rose replacement. MRF can be convert into J10 assembly and overhauling too if numbers r 80+

Keep mirages for Western border for Afghans and for coast guard after integrating them with Turkish sniper pods.

 

[FuturePAF]

I don't mean to sound rude but what is this obsession with leasing military hardware? Leased items cannot be used during a conflict. They are mainly acquired for training and gaining experience in the case a state wants to induct specific or similar systems in the future. Indian Navy acquired Russian nuclear submarines not for filling gaps or to use them for deterrence patrol. They were for training & gaining experience. Reports suggest that Russian submarines were not operationalized during the recent conflict. If we lease J-10/J-11 from China, we will have to pay lease, maintenance costs, liabilities, etc., only to return these jets back to China in the end. The experience gained would turn into a loss if PAF ends up acquiring different fighter. Last but not least, it is absolutely difficult for the Chinese military to divert their military assets away from Eastern Mainland China and the South China Sea. Things are quite hot there.

Leasing is not ideal, but a function of our limited funds. PAF would use everything it has, so the terms of a lease would clear state the PAF intents to use the planes as they see fit. Should one be lost in a conflict, Pakistan would compensate China fully. Yes, during a 3-5 year lease the PAF would pay to lease them, maintain them, and in case they are lost pay China for the lose, all to end up giving them back at the end of the lease. yet if the cost of the lease is limited, the PAF pilots will be able to keep up with the best IAF planes during the 3-5 years, and then transition right into the J-31. The goal is to have qualitatively better planes, and the soon we transition to the J-31, the better. If we bought J-10s, we would be sinking more resources in a 4th generation fighter.

The PLAAF and PLANAF could be told to spare 12-24 J-10Cs and 12-24 J-11Ds by the CCP, and make due for the 3-5 years. Should there be an urgent need, PLAAF and PLANAF pilots could get the planes back in a few days.

 

[denel]

leasing is not ideal, but a function of our limited funds. PAF would use everything it has, so the terms of a lease would clear state the PAF intents to use the planes as they see fit. Should one be lost in a conflict, Pakistan would compensate China fully. Yes, during a 3-5 year lease the PAF would pay to lease them, maintain them, and in case they are lost, all to end up giving them back at the end of the lease. yet if the cost of the lease is limited, the PAF pilots will e able to keep up with the best IAF planes, and then transition to the J-31.

The PLAAF and PLANAF could be told to spare 12-24 J-10Cs and 12-24 J-11Ds by the CCP. Should there be an urgent need, PLAAF and PLANAF pilots could get the planes back in a few days.

Agreed - leasing is a complete waste of funds and manpower.

 

[FuturePAF]

Agreed - leasing is a complete waste of funds and manpower.

A broad statement like that is shortsighted. A cost benefit analysis needs to be done to ascertain at what price point it would be better to buy then lease. For example, at $3 million per year including maintenance leasing a fully loaded J-10C could be worth it, but at say $6-7 million a year it may not be. If bought, the J-10C might be $45-50 million a piece, while the J-31 could be $60-70 million each. So leasing J-10s for 3-5 years would cover the gap, and then we would transition into the J-31. If we bought the J-10 we may not have enough funds to buy the J-31s in the future and be stuck with a more 4th generation fleet. When the IAF buys 5th generation fighters, we wouldn't be able to keep up, because we spent a lot of our money on J-10s.

36 J-10s leased at 3 million a year for 3-5 years would be $324-$540 million
36 J-10s at $6-7 million for 3-5 years a lease would cost: $648-1260 million
while buying them would be $1.62-1.8 Billion

But if we leased for only 3-5 years @$3 million per year per J-10 and then bought 36 J-31s, The J-31s would be $2.16-2.52 Billion, for a final total cost between $2.484-3.06 Billion. We cover the gap and end up with a superior plane in the end for only an additional $684 million - $1.26 Billion. also, future procurement of the J-31 would be easier as we would have 36 J-31s and the infrastructure and training to go along with it, and could buy more to keep up with any IAF F-35 purchase. The years of operating J-10 variants would not go to waste, as so many more pilots would be familiar with operating a canard delta fighter similar in many aspects to the Rafale. Should the J-31 project fall behind, PAF choose to go another way, or PAF want to stick to the J-10s, it could turn the lease into a purchase if China agrees. hence the need for a cost benefit analysis and a review of the J-31 project.

That is my logic.

 

[LKJ86]

A broad statement like that is shortsighted. A cost benefit analysis needs to be done to ascertain at what price point it would be better to buy then lease. For example, at $3 million per year including maintenance leasing a fully loaded J-10C could be worth it, but at say $6-7 million a year it may not be. If bought, the J-10C might be $45-50 million a piece, while the J-31 could be $60-70 million each. So leasing J-10s for 3-5 years would cover the gap, and then we would transition into the J-31. If we bought the J-10 we may not have enough funds to buy the J-31s in the future and be stuck with a more 4th generation fleet. When the IAF buys 5th generation fighters, we wouldn't be able to keep up, because we spent a lot of our money on J-10s.

36 J-10s leased at 3 million a year for 3-5 years would be $324-$540 million
36 J-10s at $6-7 million for 3-5 years a lease would cost: $648-1260 million
while buying them would be $1.62-1.8 Billion

But if we leased for only 3-5 years @$3 million per year per J-10 and then bought 36 J-31s, The J-31s would be $2.16-2.52 Billion, for a final total cost between $2.484-3.06 Billion. We cover the gap and end up with a superior plane in the end for only an additional $684 million - $1.26 Billion. also, future procurement of the J-31 would be easier as we would have 36 J-31s, and could buy more to keep up with any IAF F-35 purchase.

That is my logic.

When a new fighter is used, you have to establish a new logistic supporting system and train pilots. It will cost more.

 

[FuturePAF]

When a new fighter is used, you have to establish a new logistic supporting system and train pilots. It will cost more.

Agreed, hence the need for a through cost-benefit analysis and the a review of the terms and extent of a lease need to be done. Leasing logistics support systems or contracting Chinese companies to provide support have to be considered. IF the ultimate goal is a lean but mean PAF, then focusing on procuring the J-31 has to be paid by paying the costs of leasing the J-10s, and not getting stuck as a 4th generation air force.

What to look forward to when transitioning to 5th generation fighter lead air force

 

[denel]

A broad statement like that is shortsighted. A cost benefit analysis needs to be done to ascertain at what price point it would be better to buy then lease. For example, at $3 million per year including maintenance leasing a fully loaded J-10C could be worth it, but at say $6-7 million a year it may not be. If bought, the J-10C might be $45-50 million a piece, while the J-31 could be $60-70 million each. So leasing J-10s for 3-5 years would cover the gap, and then we would transition into the J-31. If we bought the J-10 we may not have enough funds to buy the J-31s in the future and be stuck with a more 4th generation fleet. When the IAF buys 5th generation fighters, we wouldn't be able to keep up, because we spent a lot of our money on J-10s.

36 J-10s leased at 3 million a year for 3-5 years would be $324-$540 million
36 J-10s at $6-7 million for 3-5 years a lease would cost: $648-1260 million
while buying them would be $1.62-1.8 Billion

But if we leased for only 3-5 years @$3 million per year per J-10 and then bought 36 J-31s, The J-31s would be $2.16-2.52 Billion, for a final total cost between $2.484-3.06 Billion. We cover the gap and end up with a superior plane in the end for only an additional $684 million - $1.26 Billion. also, future procurement of the J-31 would be easier as we would have 36 J-31s and the infrastructure and training to go along with it, and could buy more to keep up with any IAF F-35 purchase. The years of operating J-10 variants would not go to waste, as so many more pilots would be familiar with operating a canard delta fighter similar in many aspects to the Rafale. Should the J-31 project fall behind, PAF choose to go another way, or PAF want to stick to the J-10s, it could turn the lease into a purchase if China agrees. hence the need for a cost benefit analysis and a review of the J-31 project.

That is my logic.

On ROI - Leasing is a complete waste overall. Here at my farm, we get these various options etc. when i do ROI etc - leasing is always an expensive preposition.

Same also on defence equipment.

 

[SABRE]

Leasing is not ideal, but a function of our limited funds. PAF would use everything it has, so the terms of a lease would clear state the PAF intents to use the planes as they see fit. Should one be lost in a conflict, Pakistan would compensate China fully. Yes, during a 3-5 year lease the PAF would pay to lease them, maintain them, and in case they are lost pay China for the lose, all to end up giving them back at the end of the lease. yet if the cost of the lease is limited, the PAF pilots will be able to keep up with the best IAF planes during the 3-5 years, and then transition right into the J-31. The goal is to have qualitatively better planes, and the soon we transition to the J-31, the better. If we bought J-10s, we would be sinking more resources in a 4th generation fighter.

The PLAAF and PLANAF could be told to spare 12-24 J-10Cs and 12-24 J-11Ds by the CCP, and make due for the 3-5 years. Should there be an urgent need, PLAAF and PLANAF pilots could get the planes back in a few days.

Again, don't want to sound rude, but the whole argument sounds very oversimplified. Even if the lease is softened maintenance cost and liabilities cannot be reduced. Read @LKJ86's comments. It's going to be high cost with limited gains.

About transitioning; if this were the early 1990s it would be like saying PAF should buy more F-7s so it could transition to JF-17. J-31 and AZM (if AZM is not J-31) are planned to be a completely different generation of fighters. Training received on J-10 or J-11 will not yield any meaningful transitional experience. By the time the aircraft is ready for induction, the quality of avionics and weapon systems would change significantly, especially given the pace of China's technological improvement.

If it's about gaining experience on medium to large size twin-engine aircraft then PAF seems to be getting ample of it with the Chinese, and perhaps with the Saudi Typhoons as well.

 

[FuturePAF]

On ROI - Leasing is a complete waste overall. Here at my farm, we get these various options etc. when i do ROI etc - leasing is always an expensive preposition.

Same also on defence equipment.

On your farm, if you knew a product was coming to market in 3-5 years time that would allow you to fundamentally increase productivity but you needed modern equipment to win and maintain market share today from your neighbor, what would you do?

I'm not saying I'm right, but if we are to transition to a more capable force, we should not get weighed down with more 4th generation fighters then we absolutely need. How much will the difference between the planned JF-17 Block III and the J-10CE? It maybe that the J-10CE is that much better and the JF-17 Block III wont cut it against the Rafale, due to smaller systems and weaker electronics. This was also why a dedicated JF-17 Growler varaint was proposed, to make some of the JF-17s very capable inside a modestly priced air-frame. Similar to how the Falcon 20 EW aircraft were said to have been used in February's skirmish.

Again, don't want to sound rude, but the whole argument sounds very oversimplified. Even if the lease is softened maintenance cost and liabilities cannot be reduced. Read @LKJ86's comments. It's going to be high cost with limited gains.

About transitioning; if this were the early 1990s it would be like saying PAF should buy more F-7s so it could transition to JF-17. J-31 and AZM (if AZM is not J-31) are planned to be a completely different generation of fighters. Training received on J-10 or J-11 will not yield any meaningful transitional experience. By the time the aircraft is ready for induction, the quality of avionics and weapon systems would change significantly, especially given the pace of China's technological improvement.

If it's about gaining experience on medium to large size twin-engine aircraft then PAF seems to be getting ample of it with the Chinese, and perhaps with the Saudi Typhoons as well.

I appreciate your candor, so don't worry, I don't think you are rude, jut honest. We are having a spirted debate as we need to to find the right balance considering our limited resources. In the 90's if we knew we were going to get the JF-17 in 3-5 years, then yes we should have just leased F-7s if they were relatively cheaper. If the amount of money saved would have been substantial, then saving that money up to buy the more capable Block I JF-17 would have made sense. It comes down to how close we are to being able to acquire a much more capable fighter in just a few years.

All this is to say, the PAF has to compute the numbers, and come up with a plan to mitigate the risk and plan for the future within our means. If that means buying 18 J-10s instead of leasing 36 J-10s/J-11s, and that keeps the Indians at bay till project AZM is ready, then I'm all for it.

 

[Fledgingwings]

Dont we have Thunder already?

 

[Ultima Thule]

The J-20 is currently operational, but obviously it has room to improve in terms of sensor fusion and its electronics. Per USAF and US Marine Pilots, who are flying the F-35, stealth fighters tactics are different then 4th generation fighters.

It is PAF that choose to go with the JF-17 instead of the J-10. They seem to believe the JF-17's air-frame is good enough, and they are focusing on the weapons, electronic components, and fighter tactics. The JF-17 is also a budget conscious design. Sharing the same chief designer as the J-10 and J-20, the design limitations of the JF-17 are self-imposed, because if the PAF wants to it can go forward with one of the fan-boy art design, the Chinese could do it. Therefore, other than the airframe limitations, the JF-17 can have (albiet smaller versions) all the same equipment as the J-10. The JF-17 should be the last 4th generation fighter type the PAF procures, because PAF needs to focus on qualitative advantages.

We need to find out where we need to be with a 5th generation fighter, where the J-31 stands today, and what kind of timeline would allow the J-31 to get to where we need it to be. Remember the J-20 is operational. It has an initial capability that satisfies the PLAAF, so it can be deployed operationally. Also the JF-17 and the J-31 will share the same engine types, so PAF pushing the J-31 along in all aspects will trickle down to the JF-17.

The idea of the Mig-29 test-beds is for PAF to identify in its own domain, what it needs its future 5th generation fighter to be able to do. PAF can start doing that this year. It can test out sub-systems from Chinese companies and give them feedback. The Mig-29 is a cheaper air-frame with similar final engines and size to the plane we intent to procure, hence why its is ideal to stand in for the J-31 in the PAF's portion of the J-31 program.

The Mig-29s from Sudan would be on a 3 year Lease. never sold to the PAF. While the PAF borrows 4 Mig-29s, it could lease Sudan 4-8 JF-17s to cover their gap. If at the end of the 3 year program, the Sudanese are happy with the JF-17s they could buy them or return them.

The Mig-29s would come back overhauled structurally, and their sub-systems could be returned to original condition or kept with the upgraded systems, if the Sudanese want. This is just a potential side project to sell more to the Sudanese.

The Russians could try to block a lease, and so some procurement of weapons and new sub-systems may need to be made with them to appease them. China would have to be asked to use its diplomatic pressure to convince them Russia to go along.
==============

You are worried about the Rafales coming this year. I agree that is indeed concerning, but more 4th generation fighters will not change the status quo much. it would hold the PAF back in 4th generation tactics. If we need fighters ASAP we can ask China to lease some of theirs. Leasing some J-10s and/or J-11s for 5 years, until the J-31 matures, could a prudent way for the PAF to cover that gap.

If the PAF commits to the J-31 program, we could see a prototype with all the design modifications (like side bays) and electronics equipment fit fly in a couple years, with a finalized operational design possibly the year after that. In 4 years time, we could see the first full squadron, and one more squadron per year each year after that.

you've too much speculations/assertions, if defense matters is that simple almost every country have 4 gen jets in their air force, and as for MIG-29 testbed Sega, J-20/F-22/Su-57 had have a dedicated avionics integration development aircraft not fighter jets jets for avionics development like these

J-20 avionics development testbed

F-22 avionics development testbed

​

 

[GriffinsRule]

Whats the cost of leasing these J-10s vs owning JF-17s?

 

[FuturePAF]

you've too much speculations/assertions, if defense matters is that simple almost every country have 4 gen jets in their air force, and as for MIG-29 testbed Sega, J-20/F-22/Su-57 had have a dedicated avionics integration development aircraft not fighter jets jets for avionics development like these

J-20 avionics development testbed
View attachment 551725
F-22 avionics development testbed
View attachment 551726 ​

The Mig-29 is not meant for the development of the avoinics, per se, but rather creating performance requirements for the J-31 design. Testing how the sensors and comms will work in the real world, over the ocean at low level, or in the mountain valleys can't be done as well in the avionics testbed airliner. Also, the new WS-19 engines would be better tested in a fighter air-frame. one RD-33 and one WS-19 at first, and then on to both as WS-19, eventually ending with WS-19 with TVC if that is planned for the J-31.

Finally the pilots need to start developing training on the closest thing to the J-31. After which, they can start developing tactics to best use the sensors, datalinks, and the advantages of the powerful WS-19 engines.

I brought this idea up, because it is similar to the Eurofighter's test bed mini fighter; the BaE EAP Aircraft.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Aerospace_EAP

Even the Eurofighter is said to be the testbed for the upcoming British Tempest Stealth Fighter Design.
https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/defence-notes/farnborough-2018-bed-buddies-eurofighter-be-testbe/